Here’s the 25-year series (thru FY2018), & the list of auditors. These are the annual general audits of Pacifica Foundation, Inc.; the annual pensions audits aren’t publicly available. Pacifica’s year-end is 30Sep: so fiscal year 1994, FY1994, ends 30Sep1994. [UPDATE: the series now runs thru FY2021.]

And when are the FY2019 & FY2020 auditor’s reports expected?

~

2017+ .. Rogers & Company (Vienna, VA)

~

A Pacifica by-law mandates the directors to ensure that “an annual report” of a financial nature, effectively both a balance sheet & a net income statement, is made public within 120 days of year-end, so by 28Jan:

[t]he Foundation shall cause an annual report to be prepared and furnished to the Board not later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the close of the Foundation’s fiscal year and, upon payment of reasonable copying costs by the Member, to any Member who requests it in writing, which report shall contain the following information in appropriate detail:

A. The assets and liabilities, including the trust funds, of the Foundation as of the end of the fiscal year;

B. The principal changes in assets and liabilities, including trust funds, during the fiscal year;

C. The revenue or receipts of the Foundation, both unrestricted and restricted to particular purposes, for the fiscal year; and

D. The expenses or disbursements of the Foundation, for both general and restricted purposes, during the fiscal year.

The annual report shall be accompanied by any report thereon of independent accountants, or, if there is no such report, the certificate of an authorized officer of the Foundation that such statement(s) were prepared without audit from the books and records of the Foundation.

https://pacifica.org/indexed_bylaws/art12sec6.html

Coincidently, ‘within 120 days’ is also required by the Foundation for the Jewish Community, FJC, which agreed on 2Apr2018 to lend Pacifica $3.7m, but with a much stricter term: “audited annual financial statements” (emphasis added). The last time Pacifica had those was for FY2016. [UPDATE: this was rectified with the FY2020 ones.] The relevant clause of the FJC loan agreement:

[s]o long as Borrower is indebted to Lender under the Note and this Agreement is in effect, Borrower shall provide to Lender within one hundred twenty (120) days following the close of each fiscal year of the Borrower, audited financial statements of the Borrower certified by a certified public accountant acceptable to the Lender, each of which financial statements shall be in a form and substance acceptable to Lender and shall include, without limitation, balance sheets, statements of income and statements of fund balances. The Lender shall also be provided with copies of any management letters prepared by the certified public accountant issuing the financial statements promptly upon receipt by Borrower.

Section 6.1, Financial Statements, page 10 (page 11 of the PDF – the section quoted in full), https://mega.nz/file/AI0iUYga#QzMtaBd0iRTZJ_YNmh2KZ1xKu7Qh_hQ6IcPMVkGWX94

How often has Pacifica achieved this? Twice in the last 25 years – FY2006 & FY2007, 19Jan & 14Jan respectively. [UPDATE: now 28 years.]

(It’s not publicly recorded how often the cited Pacifica by-law, requiring the public annual financial report, has been complied with.)

~

2021 … ?10Aug2022 …………………………… 10⅓

. . . Note on the FY2020 auditor’s report

(The altered figures: for the accounting category “[e]stimated late filing penalties, assessments, and interest” used by Pacifica, the report sent to the lawyer gave $547 695 (p. 24; p. 26 of the PDF), & the report filed with the AG gives a mere $8 000 (p. 25; p. 27 of the PDF), a reduction by $539 695. So other figures had to be restated: “[t]otal accrued pension liabilities” fell, but by a lesser amount of $477 917, from $665 557 to $187 640, smaller because it was found necessary, for undisclosed reason(s), to increase the National Office liability by $61 778, from $6 831 to $68 609 (same pages); & the year-end balance sheet was changed, reducing “[a]ccrued expenses and payroll benefits”, & so total liabilities, by $477 918 (so with a rounding), the latter moving from $5 394 241 (the unfiled report, p. 3; p. 5 of the PDF) to $4 916 323 (the filed report, p. 4; p. 6 of the PDF). https://mega.nz/folder/RU9X0aKL#2UYdQbBOdlNJnzkXf4CBKQ)

So the auditors issued a new report – but Pacifica has no public record that it was seen by either the PNB Audit Cttee or the PNB itself: so, the Cttee didn’t even receive the revised report, let alone accept it, & then pass it on to the PNB. (By contrast, the California Government Code: “[t]he audit committee shall confer with the auditor to satisfy its members that the financial affairs of the corporation are in order, shall review and determine whether to accept the audit, shall [etc., etc.]” (emphases added), § 12586(e)(2) – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12586.)

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/2021/07/06/fy2020-audit-fiasco-intensifies-pacifica-said-things-were-sent-when-they-weren-t-and-auditor-s-report-was-completed-but-it-isn-t-and-claims-due-date-is-16aug-whereas-ag-says-no-the-statute-says-no/.

. . . Note on the FY2021 auditor’s report

The date, 10Aug2022, warrants a question mark coz although the report indeed bears that date, & was accepted by the Th11Aug PNB, it never seemed to have gone anywhere for a day shy of four weeks – was it altered? did some cash have to be coughed up? Anyway, the delay was never mentioned in an open Pacifica meeting until the W7Sep WBAI Finance Cttee, when being streamed for what may be the first time this century (the wonder of the Pacifica-technology-transparency nexus). Up popped WebPixel Otis, from the cable he’d been nestling in, telling the Cttee, “I’ve just posted it because I was reminded that I hadn’t posted it. Eileen [Rosin, Chair of the PNB Audit Cttee] sent it to me about seven days ago, & I’ve been, you know, ignoring it” (59:43) – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/wbai_fin/220907/wbai_fin220907a.mp3. And has the doc left PacificaWorld, even though the statutory 30June deadline has been missed? As of Th8Sep there is no record of a filing with the California Registry of Charitable Trusts, the inquirer being greeted with an unambiguous “Awaiting Reporting” – http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y (pump in ‘Pacifica Foundation’). (The links re the two screenshots are time-delimited, & so aren’t live – as dead as . . . a zombie public charity.)

. . . the search page of the CA Registry of Charitable Trusts website – at 8Sep2022, https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/SearchResults.aspx . . .

. . . thru FY2020 the auditor’s reports are there, but not the FY2021 one – at 8Sep2022, https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Details.aspx?result=bf7a49a1-4242-4bb0-987f-b297143b2c7d . . .

~

Delays – first one, then three

So, early on, there was a delay, lasting from Oct2001 to July2003, affecting the FY2001 & FY2002 audits. But this was remedied. What’s significant for our purposes, trying to explain Pacifica’s current ongoing travails, is the onset of three later delays: from Oct2011 (the FY2011 audit), from Oct2013 (the FY2013 audit), & from Oct2014 (the FY2014 audit). It remains to be established whether these compounded one another, & how.

These three onsets need to be explained. Was there a delay in completing the record of transactions & intra-Pacifica transfers? A delay in committing to corrective journal entries? A delay in preparing the financial statements presented to the auditors? A delay in assembling the documentary evidence supporting those financial statements? Or were the auditors unavailable to start their work? Was it difficult to provide the auditors with documents, explanations, & justifications? If Pacifica produced an annual report, for the edification (a Lawrence word or a DeWayne word?) of members, staff, listeners, donors, grantors, & others, that might have provided an incentive for the executive director to explain, in an easily found place, what the hell was going on.

So financial administration seems to have started to go ape between Oct2011 & Sep2014. What was different within PacificaWorld during this period? What was making the bookkeeping/accounting side of things start to go haywire? Who was the chief financial officer? Who was executive director? Who was PNB chairperson? Was the Board distracted by battling over motions? How did the Board discuss & address the deficiencies? What actions were proposed, & why did they fail?

Note the financial performance & monetary context:

• FY2010, the first (of six) ‘there’s a substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern’;
• Pacifica’s last annual net income was FY2006 (~$1.663m), soon followed by big annual losses: FY2009, ~$2.701m; FY2010, $1.975m (timely auditor’s report, at 26Mar2011); FY2011, $0.564m (slipping, at 15June2012); FY2012, $0.974m (more so, at 6Sep2013); FY2013, $2.824m (gliding, at 18Mar2015); FY2014, $0.771m (dropping into the abyss, at 13Dec2016); & FY2016, $2.031m;
• grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ended, the last received seem to have been in FY2013 (last CPB disclosure in an auditor’s report is the one, dated 15June2012, for FY2011 (pages 19-20; pp. 22-3 of the PDF)); & this is the latest report Pacifica has had that would meet a mid Aug deadline for the CPB’s Radio Community Service Grant Program, the one with the big bucks; &
• later developments: 4Oct2017, WBAI tower rent judgement in favour of Empire State Realty Trust (re a near 15-year contract, effective June2005 (FY2005 auditor’s report, p. 16), the responsibility of the signer, Pacifica’s then interim ED, Ambrose Lane, Sr., PNB Chair & WPFW staff-delegate); Dec2017, bankruptcy proposal; Mar2018, $3.085m ESRT settlement (FY2016 auditor’s report, p. 24; p. 26 of the PDF); paid for by 2Apr2018 three-year loan from the Foundation for the Jewish Community, operating as FJC, $3.7m (reduced to $3.265m per PNB decision, 7June2018 – https://pacifica.org/documents/pnb_exec_180607.pdf).

Is it the case that what occurred Oct2011-Sep2014 lingered, both worsening things over the succeeding years, & making it impossible to take corrective action?

Auditor’s reports at https://mega.nz/folder/RU9X0aKL#2UYdQbBOdlNJnzkXf4CBKQ & https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php

~

And when are the FY2019 & FY2020 auditor’s reports expected?

All done by 30June2021, apparently. That’s according to Jorge Diaz, the principal auditor, of Rogers & Company, playing the M26Oct2020 PNB Audit Cttee:

[t]he ultimate goal really is, um, I think get the fiscal 19 audit done and-and-um-yer perhaps the fiscal 20 audit done by, um, June 30th 2021 […] getting two audits done in one cycle, urgh, but that’s the ultimate goal […] get, get you all up current

26Oct2020 PNB Audit Cttee, 17:32, https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/201026/audit201026a.mp3, here embedded:

Sounds about right. But what I don’t get is why didn’t Jorge make it the summer solstice? Too New Agey, perhaps? It’s really all that hazy, all that vague. Aspirational. Rainbows, unicorns, pink ponies. One for the fairies. No intermediate deadlines disclosed. No necessary phases identified & timed. Nothing serious. And the committeemen & women just sucked & soaked it all up. What’s new?

~

Intermezzo . . .

. . . really needs to be played given what follows . . .

https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/rfp/7af2bbff/Grant%20Guidelines%20Radio%20CSG%20for%20FY%202021%20-%20New%20Applicant%20Guidelines.pdf (p. 2)

[UPDATE: note, when the CPB cites a financial year, it refers to when funds are disbursed. That said, the FY2022 Radio CSG came earlier, using the 2016-18 schedule: it opened Apr2021, with a W19May deadline. https://www.cpb.org/grants/Radio-Community-Service-Grant-Application-Fiscal-Year-2022-New-Applicants.] [UPDATE: the FY2023 Radio CSG had a similar timing, opening Apr2022, closing Tu24May. https://cpb.org/grants/Radio-Community-Service-Grant-Application-Fiscal-Year-2023-New-Applicants] [UPDATE: so the last seven deadlines, 2016-2022, were 16May2016, 12May2017, 11May2018, 24June2019, 13Aug2020, 19May2021, 24May2022 – but remember, the important date is the start date of the application window: as the quote above shows, applications are approved on a first-come, first-served basis.]

https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/radio/generalprovisions/FY-2021-Radio-General-Provisions.pdf (Oct2020; this partially describes the FY2021 CSG cycle, per Sections 6(A), 15(A), 15(C), & definition PP, pp. 9, 18, 18 & 28)

It’s worth explaining that contrary to Pacifica delegates’ folklore, calling something a taskforce or working group or whatever, doesn’t put it beyond the law, allowing it to secrete itself away: they’ve been set up to help, to produce information – in a phrase, they’re an “advisory body”. Yes, there are circumstances permitting “closed sessions”, but otherwise if its proceedings touch on anything to do with “public broadcasting”, & they “may influence the opinions of members” (emphases added), then that “makes it a meeting”, even though those “deliberations do not require any formal action or vote” – and the public have to be able to attend those proceedings. No ifs, no buts. Federal law. ‘Report-outs’ are irrelevant; likewise audiofiles or videos. Attending means as-it’s-happening. Bearing witness to events as they happen.

Validating evidence:

“[f]unds may not be distributed pursuant to this subpart to any public broadcast station (other than any station which is owned and operated by a state, a political or special purpose subdivision of a state or a public agency) unless such station establishes a community advisory board. Any such station shall undertake good faith efforts to assure that (i) its advisory board meets at regular intervals; (ii) the members of its advisory board regularly attend the meetings of the advisory board; and (iii) the composition of its advisory board are reasonably representative of the diverse needs and interests of the communities served by such station” (Communications Act of 1934, § 396(k)(8)(A), pp. 217-8) – embedded at https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/pacifica-sources/pacifica-documentary-sources/;

“[f]unds may not be distributed […] unless the governing body of any such organization, any committee of such governing body, or any advisory body of any such organization, holds open meetings preceded by reasonable notice to the public” (same doc, § 396(k)(4), p. 216, emphases added);

“[t]he term ‘meeting’ means the deliberations of at least the number of members of a governing or advisory body, or any committee thereof, required to take action on behalf of such body or committee where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of the governing or advisory body’s business, or the committee’s business, as the case may be, but only to the extent that such deliberations relate to public broadcasting” (same doc, § 397(5), p. 224);

from the current CPB’s compliance guide, “B. Open Meetings: Meetings that must be open to the public include, but are not limited to [re the “any advisory body” specified in the Comms Act cited above], the following (collectively Open Meetings): 1. board meetings; 2. board committee meetings; and 3. community advisory board (CAB) meetings. C. Prerequisites for a ‘Meeting’: In order for a gathering of board, committee, or CAB members to constitute a meeting under the Act, the following are necessary: 1. the presence of a quorum; and 2. deliberations that determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of business relating to public broadcasting. Note that deliberations do not require any formal action or vote. Any discussion of public broadcasting issues that may influence the opinions of members makes it a meeting” (CPB, Compliance, June2019, § I(B) & (C), p. 2, emphases added) – https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/stations/certification/cpb_certification_req_2019.pdf; &

“[s]tations that certify their compliance but are subsequently found to be non-compliant will be subject to […] a penalty of $5 000 per infraction” (CPB, CSG Non-compliance Policy, Jan2016, p. 1, emphases added) – https://www.cpb.org/files/stations/non-compliance/CPB-CSG-Non-compliance-Policy-Effective-January-1-2016.pdf.

~

Well, to return to Jorge’s prophecy, & the heavy schedule it entails, you’d expect the PNB Audit Cttee to be meeting twice a month, not least to find out what the problems are. But no: since the 14July Cttee’s recommending of the FY2018 report to the PNB, it has met thrice (M26Oct, M9Nov (also had private session – with no public report), & 30Nov), with no cancellations. Inexplicably, the 9Nov meeting had no update on the audit, even though George Walter, NETA Senior Controller, was present – and, in typical PacificaWorld fashion, no-one asked why, & no-one asked George. So no surprise the Cttee didn’t meet in Dec, & no next date has been set. Maybe they’ve stopped meeting. In fact, why not?

Elephant: why has the Cttee ground to a halt? If there’s progress to report to the world, to the members, staff, listeners, & donors/grantors, then have a meeting & spread the news. If the audit is in abeyance, becalmed, then have a meeting, let Chair Eileen ‘it’s Ros-in’ Rosin relate the difficulties, & the assembled can sort out whether they can help, without sticking their oar in, making things worse. But no, Simon & Garfunkel. As another month slips by.

And the latest news, M30Nov?

George Walter, NETA Senior Controller: I’m, urgh – I hope to have a, an updated trial balance, um, that’s gonna be sufficient &, urgh, in good enough shape to, urgh, send to the auditors, um, as a, as – call it a stake in the ground, & that is the trial balance upon which, urgh, we’ll do the audit […]

Chair Eileen: And you’re hoping to have that when, George, when?

George: By the end of the week.

[…]

George: I think, urgh, having members of this Cttee, urgh, go into their stations, um, um, I don’t want to say blindly, but, um, urr, challenging, urgh, for, for all these items, urgh, I would find that less than helpful

[…]

Anita Sims, Pacifica CFO & NETA Executive Vice President, their #2, responding to Adriana ‘point of point, Madam Chair’ Casenave: Let me first, George, if I may. Um, since, since we have been working with Pacifica, & when we first came in that, urgh, Mr Livingson – Livingston asked me if I would consider taking this job on, quite frankly I had no idea – none whatsoever – how far behind the organization was from a financial perspective, urgh, because chances are I might have [suppressed laughter] turned the job down, quite frankly

30Nov2020 PNB Audit Cttee, 9:21, 40:18, & 49:00, https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/audit/201130/audit201130a.mp3, here embedded:

So now we learn that there isn’t even a FY2019 trial balance. Jesu! Yet we were told five weeks earlier, 26Oct, as cited above, that the audit’s underway, all systems go. Now George says it’s going to take the rest of the week for him to generate the trial balance. No wonder there wasn’t a progress report at the 9Nov meeting. This audit has started out as a PR crock. It hardly needs stirring.

And NETA no wan’ militia rumbling with the station business managers, k.

But that’s the least of it, given that Anita sounds at the end of her tether . . . And the Pacifica wars have hardly begun: she’s seen nothing yet.

All in all, as The Lunatic, the Deplorable-in-Chief, puts it (but never as a combo), it is what it is, we’ll see what happens.

~

[As a courtesy, for c&p: ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅕ ⅖ ⅗ ⅘ ⅙ ⅚ ⅐ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ⅑ ⅒]

[ Also, + − – — ÷ ± ≃ ≈ ≠ > < ≥ ≤ ∝ ⇒ ⇔ ∴ ∵ 💗 ♀ ♂ 2h3′39 •∙○⦿⦾◘➊①🅐Ⓐⓐ ➡➼‣ arrowsymbol.com↑↓→←↕↔ ⭡⭣⭢⭠⭥⭤ ⇧⇩⇨⇦ ⟶⟵ ↗↘↙↖ ⮑⮐ ↻↺ ][ • • • • • • • • • • ]

~~~